4.3 Article

A comparison of pro-inflammatory cytokine mRNA expression in equine bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) and peripheral blood

期刊

VETERINARY IMMUNOLOGY AND IMMUNOPATHOLOGY
卷 158, 期 3-4, 页码 238-243

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.vetimm.2014.02.001

关键词

BAL; Equine; Aging; Polymerase chain reaction; Pro-inflammatory cytokines

资金

  1. Danish Government
  2. Familien Hede Nielsens Foundation
  3. Toosbuys Foundation
  4. Viktor A Goldschmidts foundation
  5. Christian and Ottilia Brorsons travel fund
  6. Kustos foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An imbalance in various cytokine mRNA expression in bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) in horses suffering from recurrent airway obstruction (RAO) has been demonstrated; however, the natural variation of cytokine expression in healthy horses has yet to be described. The objectives of this study were to: (1) identify age-related differences in the expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines in BAL and PBMC, (2) compare the expression of proinflammatory cytokines between BAL and PBMC, and (3) evaluate the relationship between BAL pro-inflammatory cytokine expression and BAL cytology. Cells from BAL and PBMC were collected from 66 horses and stimulated with LPS and PGN. The expression of IL-1I3, IL-6, IL-8, TNF-ce and TL-4 were measured using OCR. A significant age-related decrease for IL-113 and IL-8 in BAL, significant difference in cytokine mRNA expressions between BAL and PBMC and a significant relationship between TLR-4 and IL-8 in LPS stimulated BAL samples and the percentage of neutrophils in BAL cytology were found. In conclusion, the natural age-related decrease in pro-inflammatory cytokine expression in BAL is new knowledge; this in contrast to other age-related findings associated with PBMC, where pro-inflammatory cytokines are known to increase with age in both horses and humans, the phenomenon known as `inflamm-aging'. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据